What's new
By:

Playing the rookies together

One Brow

One Brow

Well-Known Member
Contributor
The future of this team, as far as we can tell, will be Burks-Hayward-Kanter-Favors (at least, that seems to be the consensus). So, if you're planning for the future as well as the present, why not make that the second team? Being on the second team does not mean you get fewer minutes, and it does not mean you don't finish games. Favores can play more minutes that Okur/Jefferson without starting, for example. This also has the advantage of having the young players start off against other second-teamers, who will tend to be younger or less-talented, and allow our youngsters to experience more initial success.

I agree that start Okur/Jefferson against a team starting two SFs in the regular season will be problematic, but we'll have Millsap available.
 
Hell of a post. I'd live with them not starting if it shook out as you articulated. I'd rep you but I've given out too many in the last 24 hours. Remind me another day and I'll rep you my ***** ;)
 
There's a great amount of responsibility and leadership that mentally makes people play harder, even though 'starter' is just a title.

And it doesn't hurt for young guys to play and learn against the best of the best. I think Favors and Hayward are capable starters.
 
One Brow said:
The future of this team, as far as we can tell, will be Burks-Hayward-Kanter-Favors (at least, that seems to be the consensus). So, if you're planning for the future as well as the present, why not make that the second team? Being on the second team does not mean you get fewer minutes, and it does not mean you don't finish games. Favores can play more minutes that Okur/Jefferson without starting, for example. This also has the advantage of having the young players start off against other second-teamers, who will tend to be younger or less-talented, and allow our youngsters to experience more initial success.

I agree that start Okur/Jefferson against a team starting two SFs in the regular season will be problematic, but we'll have Millsap available.
Click to expand...

Interesting thought, but I think Hayward and Favors absolutely need to start. Hayward will learn a lot more going up against the Durants and Kobes of the NBA. If the young guys are our future, they will work themselves into the starting lineup, meaning Burks and Enes mainly. I could honestly see Burks starting at the midway point of the season. This should be our lineup by the end of the year IMO: Harris, Burks, Hayward, Favors, Jefferson. Then you have Earl, CJ, Sap, Evans, Memo, and Enes coming off the bench.
 
I also agree. Let's get them as much playing time as possible. I would sit Okur and start jefferson at the 5 with Kanter behind him. Then Favors could backup Millsap and rotate Haward in and out of the 2 and 3 spot as needed. But I also think Burks is gonna need some playing time to if last night was any indication as to how he will develop.
 
chitownjazz said:
Hell of a post. I'd live with them not starting if it shook out as you articulated. I'd rep you but I've given out too many in the last 24 hours. Remind me another day and I'll rep you my ***** ;)
Click to expand...
I repped him.
So what you're saying is Corbin might actually have a plan to try to get the young 'uns some early success against back ups? How could that be? I thought Ty was a turd.

I think Hayward would be taking a step back if he doesn't start, but maybe Josh Howard solves that by playing his way into the starting lineup. So go with Millsap and Jefferson and perhaps CJ and Harris at the guards. That only leaves SF; Howard if he's ready. If not, maybe Bell has to start at SG, with CJ at SF. Maybe bring in Favors at the 6-8 min mark and slide Millsap over to the 3. Then insert Watson, Hayward, Burks and Kanter near the quarter break and give Paul a rest. Enes plays 7-8 mins and then Jefferson returns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top